Do you guys think linear single player games should have a $39.99 standard price point?

[TTLAgent]

Games are too cheap. Sorry folks. Everyone wants the moon for $60.

I'm all for developers and publishers trying different revenue structures, but I don't think just a price drop fixes anything, or am I totally convinced that a blanket statement like "single player games are struggling" is even totally accurate.

Sony invests pretty heavily in single player games perhaps largely because their studios also help move consoles. Microsoft on the other hand is less interested in consoles, and more interested right now in software so they have a different approach. I'd be curious about the financial success of Hellblade too, and as great as that game was, it's not going to come close to the production value of God of War for example, or Uncharted 4.

Bethesda is an anomaly too. Maybe they have unrealistic expectations on the games. Nier was a success according to Square Enix, but it didn't sell much more than a million units. Maybe they have different expectations on success.

How about single player games that have bigger budgets, longer stories, and more value for $70?

I'm not convinced publishers are nefariously trying to wring every last dollar out of consumers while offering back as little as they can. Businesses that do that don't have any longevity. They are trying to make quality products that people will enjoy, pay for and come out ahead on. I'd love to get games the caliber of Uncharted 4 for $40. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect more while contributing less.

And yeah, The Last Guardian was totally full price $60

 

[Imitation Of Life]

Absolutely not.

 

[Bran Van]

No. That just gives publishers less incentive to make them

Games with multiplayer already make additional revenue on top of the retail price.

 

[cvbas]

Well what we can see from last 12 months, linear SP games are not selling well with $60 entry point. So maybe a low price could help?

Click to shrink...

That's not entirely true. Super Mario Odyssey is a (somewhat) linear ~10 hour SP game and it sold great. If you use Bethesda's games as an example, their terrible marketing is more to blame for the low sales than anything else.

 

[Dinobot]

No. If anything these games should be $20 more so people don't bitch about loot boxes, season passes and microtransactions.

These linear games are still expensive to make, maybe not as much as open world but they still have highly detailed visuals and complex gameplay systems.

 

[Thatguy]

59.99 is barely enough to cover the costs of many games, so no.

(And The Last Guardian retailed for 59.99, btw)

Click to shrink...

Games cost millions of dollars to make. $60 doesn't cover any game. The reason it works is that millions of people pay $60. You then multiply those people times the $60 and THEN you profit. The whole idea of dropping the price to $40 is that you get way more people biting at that price, and in reality, you might make more money. Sony has priced a few big titles like Ratchet & Clank and Everybodys Golf at $40.

This is probably a publisher decision on a per game basis, but for me I would buy more games if they were $40 to start. I bought both R&C and EG. Last Guardian too. No way I would have bought EG at $60, but $40 I could stretch it.

With indies getting to be so good, I think publishers should try out $40 on a game or two to see how it performs.

 

[Deleted member 1105]

And it's still $40. I just bought it this week.

Click to shrink...

Just as I said, the MSRP dropped to $40 permanently.

 

[AndrewDean84]

Depends on the game, but on average, no.

 

[Cranston]

To be honest, I think gamers should stop being such cheapskates. 60 bucks is dinner and a couple of drinks.

 

[Deleted member 9486]

It just depends on the budget.

Something with top level graphics, voice acting, lots of cut scenes, decent writing etc. like Uncharted, TLOU etc. I'm fine being full price.

Problem is will probably see fewer of those games as they just aren't as profitable as an MP centric game that can be monetized through DLC expansion and micro transactions more easily.

Sony will probably keep making them as that's their niche and what makes their exclusives unique two most big multiplatform titles (and that will be more true as EA and Activision etc. shift more and more to games as a service), but MS seems to be moving away from that and as noted the third parties definitely are.

I think there's clearly a market for indie games to be $20-30 depending on budget and fill that missing mid-tier game niche the past couple of generations. Hellblade already breaking even and starting to make profit is a good indicator of that.

 

[bionic77]

Why are gamers so cheap?

A lot of single player games seem like bargains to me @ $60 for the amount of content you are getting.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

They'd have to sell far more copies at that price point, and costs keep ballooning, so it won't happen. I don't care for linear cinematic single player games so I wouldn't buy them anyway, but dropping their price is not viable.

 

[Valkyr1983]

I mean Sony is doing that with a few games this generation(Ratchet&Clank,Last Guardian and now Shadow of Colossus), Bethesda linear games are struggling with sales. What do you guys think? Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop should target for a $39.99 for a standard price?

Click to shrink...

No? Why would it? Cost should not be measured on how many hours you get out of a game, and more on how much a game costs to make

Single player focused games require a lot more resources , think of all the unique assets you need to build and the level areas you will only see like once

Does it cost activision more to make a cod campaign with voice acting, scripted events, etc... or some multi-player maps that are on rotation? Honest question

 

[dgrdsv]

"Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop" can easily be more expensive in production than whatever random multiplayer shooter is popular at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 419]

Let's say the average 2-hour film on Blu-Ray, at release, costs $25-30. I think a 5-10 hour linear single-player game is well within its rights to ask for $60, and frankly that's a bit of a steal in my opinion.

 

[Callibretto]

I think I'd feel guilty if I demand the new God of War to be $40 retail price, lol. It might be linear single player game, but that game look expensive as fuck. You see where the money is going.

 

[ASaiyan]

I haven't paid $60 for a game in a long time. So for $48 with Prime/GCU discount, I am happy paying for current singleplayer titles like Mario or Horizon, assuming they are good. If your game is well-reviewed and you have at least 10-15 hours of content (if not more), then I think you can justify that price.

At least, justify it to me anyway. I think the current industry trend towards multiplayer-only GaaS might suggest less consumers are interested in that type of game than they were in the past. But you still have plenty of stuff like Uncharted 4, which sold well, and the new God of War, which will sell well, so overall I'm not too worried.

 

[SecondNature]

No. Last of Us is going to sell at $60.00

Bethesda games didnt sell because people didnt want them for $60.00

Sony got it right pricing games like Ratchet for $40.00, but keep in mind these mid-titles were remakes and remasters.

 

[Talapia]

Depends entirely on the game.

Click to shrink...

And what price people are willing to purchase a game for. I think that's the most important metric of all.

 

[ithorien]

I want PC games to go back to $50, before Activision ruined everything.

 

[ghibli99]

$48 is the max I spend thanks to GCU/Prime, which is less than I've been paying since maybe the PS1 generation. No complaints here. And if the quality is there, the price doesn't bother me. A crappy/mediocre game at $5 is worse than a truly great one at $60.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I don't think so, even though there are a lot of hours in those games I often get a much more satisfying experience out of them then I do with other games. Although market-wise it might make sense.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

No. They already have a hard enough time making a profit anyway. This sounds like a really bad idea

Of course, if a developer of a mid-budget SP game thinks that's the best price point (see Hellblade) then more power to them. But I don't think we as consumers should collectively demand a price point like that.

 

[Mrflood]

I think it would be great to see the return of mid-tier games and pricing. (which I believe the indie seen has revived)

However games are getting more expensive to make, not less. I am more than happy to pay $60 for a 8-15 hour AAA experience.

 

[Zackat]

thanks to Amazon Prime I rarely pay $60 for a game

 

[Reinhard]

With Best Buy and GCU, the average price for AAA games is $41 already. Game is $60 with 20% off plus sales tax ~ $51 and the major AAA releases get a $10 reward zone coupon which drops the price to $41... But overall, I see no need for single player games to drop in price, remakes of old games I can understand starting at $40.

 

[zoltek]

I think the cost of the a game should reflect the budget put into said game and not how long it takes to complete or its scope. At the same time, I also don't want to play a $90 game (although with GaaS that's becoming more and more of an option for those who really like a game).

 

[kiguel182]

I think every game should. But I never buy those games at full price so for me they already have.

The only reason I buy stuff full price is if there's a big online component and I don't want to wait or a Nintendo title since those never drop in price. I can wait for the rest.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Depends on how much it cost to make the game.

Click to shrink...

This. A flat fee that's only dependant on the genre of game is just kind of silly.

 

[Raylan]

I mean Sony is doing that with a few games this generation(Ratchet&Clank,Last Guardian and now Shadow of Colossus), Bethesda linear games are struggling with sales. What do you guys think? Linear games with 10-15 hour campaign without multiplayer and coop should target for a $39.99 for a standard price?

Click to shrink...

No. Make it $39 and companies are going to stop making them. Singleplayer games are expensive and they're awesome. They're worth every penny. For AA games like the Ratchet & Clank game, it's doable. But AAA? No.

 

[GFdoom]

Nah, unfortunately, games that release these days with a $40 price tag are perceived as a "low budget" title. Also, single player games can cost just as much as large open world games. Art, music, voice over, programming, animation, the list goes on.

 

[Tunichtgut]

I don't care paying 60-70 for a new game, and it doesn't matter if its linear or not, as long as it's good. Although, i think that some of Remasters are a little bit expensive... looking at your SE!

 

[Currygan]

Lol, no. It depends on the content, anyway

 

[fantasyGG]

I don't mind paying $60 for AAA games with playtime more than 40 hours or with replayability. But not a game with only 10 hours gameplay like Wolfenstein 2. Yeah yeah, I know its a good game. But sorry, I don't have unlimited money and time, so I won't pay $60 for the game. I will just wait for a sale.

Edit: I don't mind paying $60 dollars for AssCreed Origins and Mario Odyssey, just an example of how I value the game using money as a scale.

 

[Talraen]

No. This would probably just lead to tacking on terrible multiplayer modes to justify charging more. Kind of like how game length demands lead to padding games. No, no, no, no.

 

[Memento]

What? No. What a stupid idea.

 

[Darth Finky Spunky]

Every open world game is technically linear if you're just playing the quests and not cluelessly roaming, it just so happens the quests are in an open world.

 

[Fitts]

No. Just make compelling games that are worth the money.

What should be sub-$60, however, are low effort annualized releases. (sports games, etc)

 

[Servbot24]

No, that's completely absurd. No game should have to be or do anything. Saying that because Ratchet & Clank was $40 that means The Last of Us II (mp notwithstanding) also has to be $40? Come on.

 

[Mona]

Some of them yes, I think there are examples of games in most genres that should be 40$

 

[Mass Effect]

No. Make it $39 and companies are going to stop making them. Singleplayer games are expensive and they're awesome. They're worth every penny. For AA games like the Ratchet & Clank game, it's doable. But AAA? No.

Click to shrink...

Then make less AAA games?

 

[BigApple3AM]

A game isn't instantly worth less because it only has single player. It all depends on what the game has to offer. There are single player games worth $60 and some worth $20. Depends on too many factors.

 

[NullPointer]

As a flat rule, no.

Pubs should use sub-$60 prices to properly set expectations, and to signal that the game isn't expected to have as much content as your average AAA title. But if the game is meaty enough, or quality enough to ask full price, go for it.

Springing off of this for a moment I *do* think that multiplayer-only games should be ~$40, as none of those games have launched with enough content out of the gate to be worth the full $60 to me.

 

[ToddBonzalez]

The reason why so many publishers are mandating multiplayer modes and loot boxes and the like is because AAA games have a hard enough time turning a profit at the $60 price tag. Creating a $40 standard for single-player only games would basically kill the genre. Sony has a different incentive than 3rd party publishers. They want to build the most enticing software library possible to help move hardware. That's why they develop more single-player titles than anyone else and why they can afford to sell linear games for $40.

 

[Stuggernaut]

A game being linear has nothing to do with the cost to make it. If you feel that the prices on some games are two high, then you are just in the "wait for a sale" camp like many people. Games get cheap or go on sale quite often, so really only hurts if you are a "day one" kind of gamer. In which case, the price should not matter ;)

 

[Psygnomic]

It's a fair point; product pricing can only be fixed based on what the market will support, not what a few of us (me included) want to be spent, and maybe that is changing.

If single player games aren't selling enough to turn a profit at $60, either the companies sell more copies for less $$ (if that works), stop making them, or create them for less.

Given the pick, I'd be happy with shorter games personally.

 

[Dyno]

One thing that confuses me is recently I'm seeing a lot of people calling for prices to be increased instead. The only thing is with a price increase it could have the complete opposite effect and cause less people to buy at launch, leave those who wait for price drops to wait longer or skip it all together etc.

As much as I hate them, loot box microtransactions seem to be the best option as they interfere with the established model the least. A case could be made for price increases or drops negatively or positively affecting sales but it's a risk they don't need to take when you can make up the surplus off whales and then some without the risk of breaking the status quo.

While this is most effective in multiplayer focused games it's still obviously of some benefit since it's appearing in more SP games too.

 

[krioto]

I'm struggling to identify the link between single player games and a lower price? Is there an assumption that multi-player games offer better value? Is this due to a perception that people play multi-player games for longer than SP - if yes then this is not entirely correct.

 

[Tickling]

Yes linear games need to adapt to a price point which reflects the linear nature. I want to play wolf 2 but feel paying full is waste. If it was smaller and priced cheaper I would buy it. I know it's not comparing apples with apples but I bought ac origins over wolf as ac would be a much longer game and I feel I would get my money's worth.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

No. Those linear single player games likely cost a lot more to make then your average online multiplayer or open world title.